I have to say, my feelings on it are a bit mixed.
Honestly, my first impressions of it are that it's sort of like a direct-to-DVD horror/suspense kind of film, but in TV form. The beginning of it was a bit jarring, if not cliche in terms of the various elements that they are assigning to the characters and the overall show.
The main character, Dr. Kristen Bouchard, felt really undefined in this first episode. I don't know how else to describe it. It felt cliche that she should be a single mom, even though she's still technically married to a man who is apparently away on Mt. Everest giving hiking tours, sending support cheques while she is left to raise their four daughters. I don't get why it has to be FOUR daughters. One or two kids would have sufficed to show her financial burdens, so I don't get why four daughters are required. The 'husband' element, as well as her past as a mountain climber, kind of felt tacked on for the sake of making her different. Maybe it will play a role later on but it just made her feel like a made up character rather than someone you'd meet in real life.
Furthermore, why it felt like she was rather undefined was because the 'psychology' part of it all wasn't shown as much as the paranormal part was. Her role as a forensic psychologist wasn't really displayed as well as it could have been. Yes, we saw her interview Orson and do a sort of psychological analysis on him and we saw her testify in court, but I never got the impression that she was THAT much of an expert in her field. They focused a bit too much on her home life (or lack thereof) and her financial burdens and less on her psychological expertise. What they should have gone for was a sort of Mulder/Scully dynamic between Acosta and Bouchard. They did a decent job with Acosta, but with Bouchard, I felt like they focused too much on her backstory and less on what she brought to the table in terms of her psychology expertise and science. I wasn't a fan of how easily she dismissed her disbelief in the paranormal or supernatural, even within the first few minutes of the episode when she inexplicably makes the sign of the cross on the table for Orson to react to. That didn't make much sense.
As for David Acosta, again it felt a bit like a standard trope. A good-looking, young man who seemingly suffered some kind of romantic tragedy and is now dedicating his life to becoming a (I'm assuming) celibate priest. It's obvious they're trying to set up this romantic dilemma between Acosta and Bouchard and my intelligence feels insulted as a result. I think that's what my problem was from the beginning as far as these characters go....all of it feels like a big set up that you can see from a mile away. I have no doubt that Bouchard and Acosta will start developing feelings for each other, which will come into conflict with Acosta's desire to become a priest as well as Bouchard's marriage vows, especially when her husband comes back into her life at a critical point between Bouchard and Acosta's relationship. Now, I could be wrong about all of that and they'll throw a curve ball, but that's how it's looking to play out right now.
Even Acosta's assistant, Ben Shroff, who works as the non-believer and debunker of the duo, fills a standard trope of the typical sidekick. He's unassuming, not eye-catching attractive as Acosta is, and is just there to collect a paycheque and "kill Santa Claus" (I liked that line though). I'm sure we'll get some more details on him as the series goes on but you don't get more sidekick-y that that!
And finally, Dr. Leland Townsend....he REALLY came out of nowhere! I didn't like that as I thought it felt contrived and didn't set him up as the Big Bad, as it were, very well. Now, perhaps that's on purpose considering what his true nature is supposed to be, but I thought they could have done it better. We'll see what he has to offer down the line.
Having said all that though, it wasn't all bad or cliche. What I did like was how they went about debunking all the paranormal elements, giving a logical explanation for ALMOST everything. One of the things that caught my attention were the names of the demons. Having studied this for some years, I know that demons rarely have proper names unless they are Biblical names like Azazel or Abaddon. Otherwise, their names will have something to do with the type of possession (one case I read about was a demon who caused a girl to smile this weird smile, and so the demon's name was "Smiler...because we smile!"). So a demon named George or Roy wasn't consistent, though I did like that for some reason.
As for George.....the makeup itself wasn't impressive. Maybe back in the 90's, this would have been scary but for 2019, it's pretty standard stuff. However, I did like his demeanour which was more casual than anything else. It's funny because the actor, Marti Matulis, tends to play these kinds of monsters. But really, he looked like a rejected Orc from Lord of the Rings.
What I will say though is that scene where he has a knife to Bouchard's fingers and is slicing in between the webbed part.....that made me wriggle my hand a few times! This was pretty graphic for a TV show but it's shown on CBS All Access so perhaps that's why.
Speaking of that scene, I LOVED the fact that Bouchard proved Batman right! When I was a kid, I remember watching an episode of Batman: The Animated Series, where Batman is living in a dream world where his parents didn't die and he never became Batman. Long story short, he figures out it's a dream because he couldn't read the newspaper. He then states that it's impossible to read in a dream. I parroted that for years, because Batman said so! I was ridiculed because my source for that info was a cartoon but NOW, Bouchard proved me and Batman right! Top points for that!
But yeah, they set up all the elements as being supernatural and then went and knocked each one of them down, except for Townsend, which they left us wondering whether he is possessed or not. I liked that.
What I also liked was their observation regarding evil spreading. Townsend is a "connector," as Acosta described him, connecting evil people together. He noted how the world is becoming more evil and Bouchard observed how social media is making that easier. That's very true. People of specific beliefs, regardless of what they are, are finding it easier to connect to other like-minded people, enabling their beliefs and creating a larger community. It's rather depressing because it's such a dangerous element that we can no longer control.
Overall, I think the show has promise. I can't say that this first episode was a knockout because it wasn't, but it could just be premiere jitters. I think there's a lot of fertile ground that they can play with. Psychopaths and sociopaths commit atrocities and horrific crimes literally without a care in the world. Why? Psychologically, they don't feel empathy. Some don't know right from wrong. We live in a world where full-blown narcissists are in high positions of power and it's highly unsettling. The actions of these individuals, who don't care and have no love or empathy for the ones they hurt....their acts are often called "inhumane," because it seems like they have no humanity in them. It's those times when they remind me of the demonic: beings who have no love in them and know only hate, only anger, only rage, only self and feed off of the suffering and misery of others.
I think the show leaves open the discussion for what evil really is and how far humanity can go when it comes to acts of evil and how depraved the human mind can get. But what about the human spirit? Because if it gets to the point of losing all it's humanity, is it human anymore? Is it demonic?
I hope this show delves into those questions more.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be respectful and tasteful in your comments. Lively debates are welcome. Bullying and childish behaviour are not. You are expected to know the difference.